AMD Baton CPU info/pictures here

[lchen66666]

Take look at here

http://www1.oc.com.tw/forums/msg.asp?id=A03&msgid=104033&n=1&posit=1&remsgid=104031

 

[osage]

linky

 

[Soulkeeper]

hmmmm no 400mhz fsb in that wcpuid

 

[Soulkeeper]

mmmmmmm i want one

 

[ChampionAtTufshop]

arent usually the numbers after the 4 letters the speed of the cpu?
and in that pic it says 1833?

i see something about 1833mhz written just above that picture, but seeing as how i cant read it i have no idea what it says

unless they changed it for hammer...

 

[MatthewF01]

is that REALLY a Barton?!


who are these people and how do they have one?

 

[rIpTOr]

Strange FSB speed and all, but looks like a Barton core, 512KB L2 Cache.

 

[mrman3k]

I don't think it is real. I mean it just doesn't look like the real deal, and if it is, how come the 400MHz FSB isn't showing up?

 

[MatthewF01]

well who is to say that the barton is to be SOLELY a 400mhz processor. The original AMD Roadmaps showed it sometimes as being a 333mhz processor, right?

So if earlier versions were 333, or hell even 266, then this makes sense.

 

[MatthewF01]

wait, look at that WCPUID. Why isnt the bus saying 333 or 400. Its an overclocked 333. And with that 12.5 multiplier, it should run at 2075 Mhz stock.

 

[Abhoth]

Have a 2400+ that'll give you that wcpuid.... real or not... don't want to SEE it, want to play with it!

 

[lchen66666]

It mentioned that original frequency is 1833MHZ, and it's overclocked to 2325MZ.

But I couldn't figure out why original 1833. If it's multipler is 12.5, 1833/12.5=146MHZ(FSB)
That's strange.

Another explaination it's a engineering sample which the web site mentioned

 

[Mark R]

What's to say that it's default multiplier isn't 11x?

It certainly looks like the real thing.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I have some observations and speculation (mostly speculation of course but based on some data we know as well) to add to this discussion. First , compare the core size of the "barton?" in the pic to The 2800+'s here that looks like the 512 cache could be incorporated from it's size don't you think?, also as you probably noted, they cover the numbers in the corner and the rest of the processor info to the right of the stepping and model info, (is this because AMD doesn't want it disclosed yet?). Now, notice that the only difference between the bridges on the 2800+ and the one in the pic is that none of the L3s are closed. Also lchen66666's math plugs in the wrong numbers, the1833 isn't the mhz of the CPU but should denote the PR of the model just like the ES sample in the Tom's pic I linked or other's for the 2600+ and 2700+ I can link as well. Now here's where it gets weird to me, IF the PR is indeed 1833 why do they show a screenshot of it@2325mhz with a fsb 185.87???? It's clearly overclocked and out of spec IF the default multiplier is 12.5, furthermore, 166fsbx12.5=2075mhz which more likely would be the default FSB for the chip in WCPUID since 185.87x12.5=2323mhz. So why is the PR rating so damned low then if even the default fsb of 166mhz rates the CPU higher than the PR???? Perhaps, {DISCLAIMER:} and of course this is just my speculation based on the discrepancies between the PR and actual speeds which are based by my calculations above [/DISCLAIMER] it's because with the 512kb cache the PR increases and the real default multiplier is approx. 10.5x133mhz fsb=1.4ghz=XP1600+ PR= Barton 1833+ PR??? at the same FSB and multiplier. In the end I personally believe this is either a very early ES Barton core CPU or it's FUD. I will happily accept alternative explainations but they will need to explain away the 1833 on the CPU and why it's not the model number like the others and is the actual 1833mhz they claim? Obviously due to a lack of information we can speculate that it's such an early ES that they haven't figured the PR yet so it's the actual MHZ but my breif search yielded no other examples of this so a link to a reputable source showing this done before would make me rethink my opinion as to the validity of whats shown on the page linked, till then I remain highly skeptical. EDIT: I think you could figure the math with a 166mhz default fsb and just alter the multiplier to come up with a Barton with a PR of 1833 since Anand say's Barton will ship @400 fsb it only stands to reason an earlier ES would be 333fsb.

 

[mrman3k]

I just prefer overall to wait and see things on major websites and not some sideshow Japanese website with all sorts of Photoshoped images of a Tbred.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: mrman3k
I just prefer overall to wait and see things on major websites and not some sideshow Japanese website with all sorts of Photoshoped images of a Tbred.

Dammit! I go through all that to be diplomatic and non-confrontational and you go and sum up my opinion in one sentence! :frown: Where were you before I wrote all that!?!

 

[meson2000]

Actually, I thought Anand recently stated that Barton would ship @ 333mhz FSB and then later get bumped to 400mhz. I really
doubt that Barton will ship @ 400mhz from the start. It takes a lot to validate a motherboard to work perfectly at 400mhz. I wouldn't
look for 400mhz FSB Bartons until the middle or late part of 2003.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: mrman3k
I just prefer overall to wait and see things on major websites and not some sideshow Japanese website with all sorts of Photoshoped images of a Tbred.

Dammit! I go through all that to be diplomatic and non-confrontational and you go and sum up my opinion in one sentence! :frown: Where were you before I wrote all that!?!

LoL

Chiz